Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J.:- Appellants, 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are the directors of Rajnagar Spinning and Weaving Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad and appellant No. 3 is an officer of the said company. On March, 19, 1969 a complaint was lodged against them by respondent 1, an Inspector appointed under the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 that they had failed to pay a sum of Rs. 1, 39,419.50 being the contribution to the Provident Fund for the months of June, July and August, 1968 and that thereby they had contravened the provisions of Paragraph 38(1) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, an act punishable under Paragraph 76(a) of the Scheme.

2. An investigation was made into the affairs of the company under Section 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and on being satisfied that the company was managed in a manner highly detrimental to public interest, the Government of India issued an order dated January 7, 1972 authorising, the Gujarat State Textile Corporation to take over the management of the Company. On May 6, 1972 Gujarat Government issued a notification declaring the company to be a "relief undertaking under S. 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 ( the Act ), and directing that):

"All rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities accrued or incurred before the undertaking was declared a relief undertaking and any remedy for the enforcement thereof shall be suspended and all the proceedings relative thereto pending before any Court, Tribunal, officer or authority shall be stayed with effect from 6th May, 1972.

3. The appellants filed one application after another asking the Court which was seized of the matter to stay the prosecution in view of the notification issued by the Government of Gujarat. Two of such applications were rejected by the learned City Magistrate III Court, Ahmedabad. Appellants acquiesced in one of the orders, carried the other in revision to the High Court but withdrew that proceeding. On October 27, 1972 they made yet another application for the same relief which also was rejected by the learned Magistrate. He took the view, as in the two earlier applications, that the operation of Section 4 of the Act is restricted to the status mentioned in the Schedule to that Act and that sub-clause (iv) of Section 4(1) did not contemplate stay of criminal proceedings. The High Court of Gujarat rejected summarily the revision application filed by the appellants against the judgment of the learned Magistrate. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court.

4. We are concerned in this appeal with the narrow question whether the prosecution pending against the appellants under Paragraph 76(a) of the Employees Provided Funds Scheme, 1952 is liable to be stayed by virtue of the notification issued by the Government of Gujarat on May 6, 1972. That notification was issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 4(i)(a)(iv) of the Act, which reads thus :

"(4). (1) Notwithstanding any law, usage, custom, contract, instrument decree, order, award, submission, settlement, standing order or other provision whatsoever, the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that -

(a) in relation to any relief undertaking and in respect of the period for which the relief undertaking continues as such under sub-section (2) of Section 3 -

x x x x

(iv) any right, privilege, obligation or liability accrued or incurred before the under taking was declared a relief undertaking and any remedy for the enforcement thereof shall be suspended and all proceedings relative thereto pending before any Court. Tribunal, officer or authority shall be stayed:"

"All proceedings relative thereto" patently means all proceedings relating to "any right, provilege, obligation or liability accrued or incurred before the undertaking was declared a relief undertakings." The obligation or liability which sub-clause (iv) speaks of